Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] If you want a Stateless Reset you need to send a much larger packet than before (#2770)

Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com> Thu, 06 June 2019 02:02 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@github.com>
X-Original-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3440120148 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Jun 2019 19:02:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.391
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.391 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=github.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ynf_kTnOKQRm for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Jun 2019 19:02:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-7.smtp.github.com (out-7.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.198]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B8215120130 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Jun 2019 19:02:43 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2019 19:02:41 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1559786561; bh=lwXOoioocvhWlhx7Lm3AF47fsKp+Koh9DsF3GG9PhGw=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=ZE5AkNCWaoa7D//hHZpVUjw6VXSE9DEVZFdXl978nW3+nVbtkeOaarak0a8SWP/9s 3bNQzltI+715GjyWPlf1Wpr1n3OOuvgK4ojwCxLDS15IJ9HHAuhr3L2Ol0WpoLTmsu 4s09poSPNmqeEnoOHOiO3+VI0Y8LVbwgUllSCS9A=
From: Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK5S3MBQL5OQCMVLION3AWTMDEVBNHHBV5FOPQ@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2770/499320030@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2770@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2770@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] If you want a Stateless Reset you need to send a much larger packet than before (#2770)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5cf87441d3c2a_77b53f94a88cd968299962"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: martinthomson
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/abRa2iHXgJmY38u6iQ6ocbfadWo>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <quic-issues.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic-issues/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic-issues@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2019 02:02:46 -0000

Yes, there are a lot of places where the sizes are mere suggestions rather than concrete requirements.  That's intentional.  We could just say "oh well", but the problem here is that the gap between min and max has increased dramatically as a result of #2749.  That makes the choice to pad to a size that will trigger a stateless reset a harder call.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2770#issuecomment-499320030